September 06, 2018

"This is worth reading every word. It explains why liberal democrats are beyond angry and reason... About a 3 minute read.

The fury of Democrats has nothing to do with missing pages or hurried timetables. It has everything to do with being sore losers. They still cannot accept that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Doing so would demand coming to terms with why, under President Obama, the party lost not only the presidential election but also an unprecedented number of seats in the Senate, the House, in state legislatures and governors’ mansions across the country.

It would mean admitting that President Obama was a disaster for his party.

During that agonizing descent into impotence – as Democrats lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2012 and the White House in 2016 – not once did the party veer from policies that clearly were unpopular with voters.

Not once did Democrats loosen their grip on the progressive juggernaut that propelled them forward. They embraced environmental laws that could cripple the country’s energy base, health-care mandates that were affordable only to those subsidized by the government, restrictions on law enforcement agencies that compromised our safety on our streets, regulations on small and big businesses that made them uncompetitive. They made it harder for entrepreneurs to succeed and create jobs, and they supported immigration programs that mocked the rule of law.

Because Democrats lost their majorities in Congress, President Obama took it upon himself to create laws and to implement them. In many instances, such as with Obama’s Clean Power Plan – which would have upended our country’s energy industries – the Supreme Court slammed on the brakes, so egregious was the executive overreach. Ditto the effort to fundamentally change our immigration and labor laws.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against President Obama’s use of recess appointments in the case of National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning. At the time, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican representative from Virginia, said that the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

In the 2016 Supreme Court session, the White House lost 10 cases on unanimous decisions. That was a humiliating outcome that included votes from two Obama-appointed justices.

In fact, the Supreme Court ended up being the referee-in-chief, handing down an unprecedented number of unfavorable rulings to the Obama White House. Over time, most presidents score a “win” rate of about two-thirds; for Obama it was about half

This history brings the flap over Kavanaugh into perspective. If you are pushing an unpopular agenda, legislating from the White House is the last resort. But in that scenario, the makeup of the Supreme Court becomes vitally important.

The addition of Kavanaugh will almost certainly tilt the Supreme Court to the right, although over time judges can gravitate one way or another. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for instance, who was appointed by President Reagan, was initially a reliable conservative voter on the court but over the years become ever more liberal.

For the moment, however, Kavanaugh is solidly conservative; he is, in particular, no fan of the endless spread and intrusion of Big Government. For instance, he declared unconstitutional the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency uniquely unaccountable to Congress or the president.

Kavanaugh’s dislike of an overreaching government is catnip to conservatives, but anathema to liberals, who increasingly embrace a soft form of socialism, encouraging ever more federal control of our industries and our lives.

The Supreme Court with Kavanaugh aboard would become a serious speedbump for progressives. The next Democratic president would be less able to legislate from the White House. Instead, Democrats would have to promote their programs the old-fashioned way; they would have to win some elections.

July 19, 2018

I just watched the Governess Kate Brown Show on her Wildfire Conflagration Declaration (although she wasn't smart enough to use that proper term) on KPTV Ch 12. She mumbled through her part of the presentation, then presented various agency heads to give spiels.

I watched the Adjutant General of the Oregon National Guard, MAJ GEN Michael E. Stencel, with interest, since I am an Air Nasty Guard retiree and worked for the Adjutant Generals while I served in the Air Guard. Right off the bat, General Stencel goes political, profusely thanking (D) Senators Merkely and Wyden for getting the Oregon National Guard training money so expeditiously.

This caused me to issue a "HUH?", because other than their votes for the current NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), the Senators could have had NOTHING to do with getting that money out to Oregon in a timely fashion. That would have been the responsibility of the National Guard Bureau, and ultimately, Sec/Def Mattis, who works for TRUMP, last time I checked.

Next, this caused me to go to my study and get out the latest copy of the "Oregon Sentinel", the excellent quarterly put out for Guard folks (and whoever else cares to read it) by the Oregon National Guard Public Affairs Section. This issue is Vol. 16, No. 2, and it contains TWO articles on topic. The first, on Page 2, by General Stencel himself, is titled, "Oregon Guard uniquely suited for domestic response", in which he describes his job of leading the Guard, especially in readiness for exigiencies such as a bad fire season. He doesn't mention any Democrats in this article. The article is aimed at members and leaders of the Guard, is a very rah-rah article.

The second article, on Page 7, is titled, "Chinook helicopter unit prepares for homeland missions", and refers to the B Co, 1 BN, 168th Aviation Regiment, a CH-47D outfit operating out of Pendleton, Oregon. The article mentions that this helo unit is the first to be certified in "Bambi Bucket" water drops by the US Forest Service's Aviation branch flight-check section. This is where that NDAA money went first, the money that GEN Stencel gave credit for to Merk, our Jerk, and Wyden, New York's Third Senator, for getting these dollars to us.

Speaking of Oregon's two Senators, how did they vote on the 2018 NDAA, HJR 2810? According to this:they both voted "Nay", or no! The Bill passed the Senate 89-8, by the way.

So, GEN Stencel, do you think that maybe, just maybe, you might want to issue a clarification about your profuse thanks to the Senators who ACTUALLY voted to DENY Oregon the funding to train the National Guard for firefighting service?

If you fail to issue this clarification, General, we have no choice, sir, but to label you an Obama General, and if I know Sec/Def Mattis, Obama Generals are on his Do Not Retain list.

June 28, 2018

Okay. The Right has a string of recent Victories we can call a "trend", and with the SCOTUS vacancy, we could extend Victory well out past the present political horizon. How do we do that?

We DON'T do that by "Never-Trumping". We DON'T do that by standing on soapboxes in the park arguing Roe v. Wade over again.

We DO DO that by going on the Offense. The most boneheaded Democrat out there (use your own iconic choice) will now have to admit that President Trump is in the catbird seat, and NOTHING that the (D)-party can do will change that. So, with the MOST POWERFUL politician in the Nation now DEFINITELY being Trump, how does he (and WE) proceed to go on Offense?

First, the Right needs an actual GAME PLAN; we don't have one now. "MAGA" is a slogan, not a game plan. The game plan will have a goal of winning elections and getting stronger in Congress and also local Legislatures/City Councils, of course, but it also needs a GRAND VISION.

The Grand Vision should be to take down the Democratic Party. Take it down FOREVER.

Yes, the entire Democratic Party needs to be consigned to the dustbin of History, and that's actually NOT hard to do, but it will take time. If Trump starts today, he will just get it done by the 2024 election.

So, how DO we take out the entire Democratic Party? That part is easy: the Democrats have turned their party into a networked system of political corruption (the GOP may have tried this, but only got as far as turning the GOPe into a Stupid Party). The major Democratic Party leaders direct all this corruption, and can LEGALLY be considered "Racketeers", so the entire Party structure can be considered a "Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization". Public law is involved: 18 USC 1961 and related. When the Judge in the lawsuit rules that the (D)-Party IS a RICO group, he can ban it entirely, or perhaps, from the bench, take apart the party and ban the worst parts but put all the remainder on Court Probation. Either way, that ends the Democratic Party as a National political force. What would replace it?

Replacements for the Democrats would, of course, be a Socialist Party, but maybe also a Center-Party of some sort. The catchy-names will come later.

June 15, 2018

Facebook “hate speech”. A game of no-rules football, to be sure. The brass hats at FB admit there are NO concrete definitions of “hate speech”, they admit that they make mistakes, and they admit to employing 7,500 censors, but this is apparently their working definition of “hate speech”1 “we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease”. In that word-string, I consider “direct and serious attacks” to be the operative definition. The rest of it is ei-ei-Yo to me. The PeeCee world changes it’s definitions of “protected categories” at least as often as a paid nanny changes a baby’s diapers, maybe even more often.

This article2 from the LA Times is informative, in a “told ya so” sort of way.

What FB needs to do is use a recognized glossary. Now, that glossary is going to vary based upon the nation the writer writes from, and that can be recognized by the use of algorithms.

Specifics: I used the word “muzzies (plural of “muzzie”). Here is a slang dictionary on that word:

“Muzzie n. a nickname for a Muslim. Editorial Note: This word is often, but not always, derogatory. It is not commonly used by North Americans. (Mar 11, 2005

In my banned post, I connected the use of the above slang word with “Terrorism”, which is a legal and military term. Perhaps a better choice for me might have been “Islamic” and “Terrorism”, but then remember POTUS44, who REFUSED to use that word combination. This is NOT a "direct and serious attack" on anyone.

More specifics: I used the name “Junior Trudeau” as I was referring to the MOST RECENT Canadian Premier, but there is a recently-retired one by the same name, the father of the present one, hence the descriptive “Junior”. There is just no way that can be considered offensive, but since my banned post was a comment on a thread by a former Canadian friend and some of his supposed-friends, politically Liberal, all of them, they took my comments on the thread very hard, especially since I had just pointed out that Premier Trudeau seemed to be lying about the Tariff situation between Canada and the USA, AND I showed a joint Canada-USA GOVERNMENT chart proving that Canada’s tariffs on US trade are FAR more excessive than USA tariffs on Canada’s goods. Again, NOT a "direct and serious attack" on Premier Justin Trudeau.

Further investigation: I declare that it’s appropriate, given this INAPPROPRIATE post-banning and “Facebook Jail” term, plus the THREAT of PERMANENT banning, that several things happen, and I am retaining counsel to see if I can bring these things about:

1. Facebook MUST have a glossary of banned speech and use it, ceasing ALL “hate speech” banning until it does. Failure to take this step is a violation of Free Speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

2. Facebook needs to stop playing political favorites, left over right. This same Canadian bunch, one of whom likely finked me out, is KNOWN for lampooning President Trump, and not always politely, either. If I can’t say “Junior Trudeau”, they shouldn’t be able to refer to Trump as an orange ape, or butcher his name (it’s NOT “Drumpf”) or cast unsupported negative personal aspersions about him.

3. Legal issues: Just like the political uses of the Clinton Foundation, there’s one of those tax-exempt funds over at Mark Zuckerberg’s empire. IRS rules for these is that they are CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS, and cannot be used for political purposes. I’m going to bet that Zuck’s is used just like the Clinton's.

UPDATE: 061518 1941 PDT: Facebook lies their ass off. I was informed that I was in FB Jail for 24 hours. After that posted on my timeline, I waited out the 24 hours (blogging, posting on MeWe & Twitter, mostly about Facebook perfidy). Well, even though I have Facebook's word for that on my timeline, they broke THAT contract as well, now let me READ my page, but I can't post anything for another 24 hours. Oh, well, these meglos are all Democrats, so I guess lying goes with their politics. We will see what tomorrow brings. Oh, yeah, Face-planters, tell your legal department I'm coming, and I'm bringing a whirlwind.

Item one on #FrightfulFriday: Facebook Jail. Yep, I dared to piss off some real, by-God, Canadian Loons, and they snitched me off for writing a lampoonish comment about their Loon-in-chief, Justin Trudeau, whom I called "Junior Trudeau" (true, that: look it up, his father is still alive!). I referred negatively to Junior's "Letting the Muzzies in" immigration policy, in those words. I'm suspended, under THREAT of permanent banning, but those ASSWIPES at Facebook won't even tell me what behavior it is I have to change to stay on the FacePlace, other than I commited "hate speech", which is so vague a charge it could NEVER be used in any court to convict ANYONE. Just like a meglo, isn't that? "I'm God and YOU can't question me." You don't suppose that reference to WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) would be Hate Speech now, do you? I was called a WASP damn near every day in high school, and that School is considered one of the most PeeCee in the country, and has been for 100 years. Here's news FacePlace can use: I have contacted a civil rights attorney in Kali, and am inquiring about sending the Zuckerbooger a Cease and Desist letter, maybe even a Tort Claim.

Item Two: I waited, and now it's here, TAAAH-DAAAH! Savage's Model 110 Tactical rifle. I'm interested in Stock Number 57007, the .308 with 24" barrel. With this barrel length, heavier bullets can be loaded with slower-burning powders which are calculated to burn completely in the longer barrel, accelerating the bullet to a better velocity, almost as good as 300 WIN Magnum. The MSRP is $784 (Streets @ $606.99 at Grab-a-gun.com), very nice for a rifle of this capability, likely a half-MOA or better. Looks like I might be able to put together the rifle, the good glass and whatever else I need, maybe even a can for around $2500. Some 168-gr match and the tables look good at out past 500 yards. Yowza. One shot, one (nevermind).

So, I'm back on here, and on Twitter (@straightcase) and on MeWe (George Schneider) or the email attached to this blog.

March 15, 2018

This would be the most severe gun-grab in the Nation, if passed. A group calling itself "Interfaith Leaders" proposes to ban all semi-automatic, or magazine-fed firearms. The article says just "Assault Rifles", but the boasting out of the Commissar Knutson's "Church" (bull. commies don't have churches) was to include all semi-autos fed by magazines.

The Initiative process, by which Commissar Knutson proposes to enact this law, is operated by the State of Oregon, so...(my Facebook Post)

My answer to the "Inter-Faith Group" seeking to ban all semi-automatic firearms in Oregon - Here is YOUR future:

1. You have ALREADY conspired to restrict or remove an enumerated Right of the Bill of Rights. You have done that just by MEETING to discuss your ill-conceived Initiative. Legally, that means that Probable Cause might already exist for your arrest on 18 USC 242, Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Authority.

2. "Under Color of Authority" will probably have to be decided in a courtroom, but this 25-year Officer of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County believes that the "Authority" of the State of Oregon is extended willingly down to reside in those following the Initiative Process. The fact that this Initiative IS a de-jure Denial of Civil Rights cannot even be challenged.

3. Prior to the Finding that the Initiative Process DEPENDS on the Color of Authority of the State of Oregon, there is another legal facet to be perfected. That facet is the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization designation which will apply to the organizers, from the Chief Petitioner on down to the signature-collectors. Under any declaration that a criminal conspiracy exists (a simple True Bill from a Federal Grand Jury or a USAG's Information) the RICO process may be initiated. That process will freeze ALL the assets of the named conspirators, the financial supporters and yes, perhaps even the signers of the Petition (the instrumentality of the criminal conspiracy). A VERY wide swath can be cut by the RICO process, and it might indeed ensnare all governmental officials who had provable Notice of the Petition, were in a position to stop the approval of the Petition but didn't, and maybe even the Judge who approved the ballot title. BTW, for the uninformed, once a judgment of RICO has been rendered, the defendants may be assessed as much as treble damages, in addition to Court Costs, Attorney Fees and all such expense.

4. The final Sword of Damocles hanging over this entire legal proceeding would be Class Action. I believe that there are over two million gun owners in Oregon, and each would be entitled to join in a Class as Plaintiffs, seeking common damages. I should think that those damages would be at least $10K/Plaintiff, which would put the erstwhile gun-grabbers on the legal hook for $20 Billion dollars. Considering the VERY deep pockets of the likes of Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg and other Limousine Liberals who can be expected to empower this conspiracy via their wealth, they probably DO HAVE $20B amongst them.

Your essayist begs for many, many Shares, so someone at the top of this anti-Civil Rights cabal will get my notice. Pass this word, please!

February 23, 2018

1. Democrats lie a lot, but they are FAR better organizers than GOPes will ever be.

2. GOPes ARE just as devious as Democrats. To GOPes, "protecting the Constitution” NEVER has the vital two words, "as written" involved.

3. If your aim is more Government (all D efforts lead in that direction, plus about 50% of GOP efforts), a populace with the determination and MEANS (guns) to END government is your greatest worry, not what the Other Party says or does.

4. If you could take all 500+ congresscritters to a large room with tables, sit them down with blank paper and pens, and ask them to offer what THEIR changes to the Constitution might be, how many would turn in a sheet with one word, “NONE!" on it? 5%? 10%? on Independence Day, maybe 25%?

5. If you asked all those Congresscritters to list all the Amendments as to their support of them, AS WRITTEN, with ORIGINAL MEANINGS, how many would include the 2A on that list? Damn few.

6. Do YOU know the meaning of the 2A, AS WRITTEN? Start with the Federalist Papers. Read Federalist #29.

Nope, the Congresscritters we elect can change our Constitution the sneaky way, by writing laws that change the original Founders' meaning of Articles and Sections and Amendments. No matter the party in power, we can NEVER trust Congress to NOT change the Constitution with little pushes, and when there are enough little pushes, an original meaning gets lost.

BTW, the REAL meaning and Intent of the 2A is to enable the Citizens to REMOVE their Government if it becomes Tyrannical, and giving them the R2KBA does that nicely. ANY politician of either stripe who tells you that the 2A is about the structure of Militia, or about owning hunting guns (?????), or even about personal protection from armed criminals is WRONG, it is about REMOVING THE GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE OUR GOVERNMENT! Politicians don't like that, want to obfuscate that right if not remove it entirely. since our 2A has the purpose of enabling that Right, ALL politicians who value their jobs more than their Constitution (at least 80% of them) want to alter/remove the 2A.

If the above words don't worry you, do NOT count yourself as a Patriot.

February 20, 2018

Recycling has been all over the Western World like a wet diaper on a baby for almost 50 years now. What could POSSIBLY be more liberal that the recycling habit? Well, besides gun control, but I digress.

Recycling is one of those ideas we conservatives never looked into adequately. We're paying for that failure NOW.

You see, all along, recycling was an ARTIFICIAL idea, an idea which ONLY EVER WORKED because of an ENGINEERED MARKET for the recycled plastics which are it's main component. That engineered market was China, which early on, figured out how to avoid having to make their own tosser-plastics. They bought up all of ours. Paid good money for them, too, because of all that expensive oil they WEREN'T buying to make those plastics they NEEDED.

The Chinese engineered market for our recyclables has collapsed, for two reasons: First, China is much more industrialized than it was three decades ago, so they generate their own recyclables to re-use. Second, the bottom dropped out of the oil market, and prices are much lower now, so it's cheaper again to make plastic from scratch than it is to buy and ship it from the USA.

Where does this all leave the USA? With recycling yards closing, or worse, just using their hidden-in-contract safety-valves and sending all that plastic to landfills to be buried.

Wait! You scream in your best liberal protest voice. How can they just dump all those plastics I laboriously recycle (and in many cases, at the point of liberal/commie guns - just look up the penalties for failing to recycle every scrap that are in place in King County, WA.

So, my Guru Of All Things Thinkable, you sniffle & sob, WHAT DO WE DO?

We write off the entire idea, that's what we do. We improve our landfills as much as we can, we invest in incineration facilities, we site more landfills, we go back to old systems like wrapping the meat in PAPER, not PLASTIC. Above all, the next cockamamie idea the Liberals bring us, we actually LOOK at it, not just try to FEEL it like they want us to do.

February 10, 2018

The money-pundits are full of themselves this morning. Fox' usual Saturday-morning gang, are blasting the very heavens with "Three Trillion Dollars Lost to the Economy"...

That's bullcrap. Yes, the total losses WERE that high, but only if you also consider the failed gambles of derivatives trading the same as stock losses.

Nowhere do I see the figures on the losses of the actual market value of companies such as Caterpillar, US Steel, Ford Motor Co. etc.

This wild sell-off see-saw started with Investment Bankers tinkering with Derivatives, especially Goldman's Vix funds. There is NO earthly reason that actual investment funds should EVER be spent on wild gambles such as betting how wide the sweeps between losses and gains will be in certain time frames (that's "Vix", or in long-form, Variability-factor X).

Vix is a calculated factor used in the Arbitrage Theory of predicting price variations in equities, but it's only one such factor of many. Paying for "Vix Shares", or guesses where the swings will wind up, makes no more sense that betting on the daily "Handle" (total amount bet at the betting windows) for a horse or dog-racing track.

I don't follow the pricing of Vix Shares a sold by Goldman, but I DID hear a blurb on the news about a week ago which said that GS had somehow jacked up the price of those shares to over three thousand dollars per share, and their scarcity is one of the things that started this sell-off.

Yours Truly went to a private high school in DeeCee, the Maret School, and as a Junior, my Annual Thesis (long term-paper, got A-minus on it) was about how Goldman Sachs created the Crash of 1929 by introducing a CHAIN of three investment banks so as to allow highly leveraged trading. By running your funds through this chain, you could buy on 10% margin, so 0.1% actual cash went into your stock purchases (ten percent of ten percent of ten percent). They did this AGAIN with Derivatives trading in 2009, and now they have their Vix Bank (CBOE) trying it again, right on the heels of messing with the cryptocurrencies, which RAISED the Vix and helped them make their Vix shares so expensive. It's all in here.

If the entire brain trust of Goldman Sachs were frog-marched off to Gitmo tomorrow, first, they would be in the right place, and second, that would leave fiscal-advisor vacancies on the Trump Team, another benefit, because we can ALL do without the historic fiscal meddling of this cabal of bankers.

February 05, 2018

It is now apparent that the Obama Administration criminally interfered in an election to determine it's successor. It's unknown whether Obama himself was involved, but the optics aren't good. This conspiracy is nothing less than an attempted Coup D'Etat.

Now the USA faces a dilemma: do we go though the national angst, the sturm und drang, of flashy show trials to send a few of the worst malefactors to prison, or do we not, and just proceed with M.A.G.A.?

Are there any alternatives? Let's look.

Why can't the SCOTUS take this bull by the horns and on it's OWN MOTION, decide that the legal process it presides over was badly abused, and make the Court's own corrections, which would likely include Contempt citations?

It DOES seem fairly obvious that the Congress will do little, if anything, in the way of remedies. The GOP is badly split, with FAR too many of it's members habitually siding with the Left on these matters, and of course, since the Left ARE the bad guys in all of this, they can be expected to offer only a worsening of the situation.

President Trump, of course, is in command here, but Mister President, you need to SHOW us that you are in charge. Make a decision on the direction this is all going to go, implement your decision, and we will back you up.

The goals and method are simple here: the election system is badly compromised. The Left has done 98% of the compromising. The voter rolls must be purged of dead voters and illegal aliens, a better system of designing Congressional Districts MUST be put into place to prevent the Left's use of "gerrymandering", and while we're at it, we need to bring the entire voting system into the 21st century technically.

When these election reforms are done, the evil that is the Criminal Left is emasculated, and will no longer have the influence it does. Just an example: the rise of "dynasties" such as the Clinton Dynasty has to be ended. No one family is ever born with the genes to make them the perfect leaders, and that idea is sold by the Left with a whole lot of bullcrap when it has happened, most recently in the case of the Kennedys and then the Clintons.

I would favor a new set of term limits: One, each and only, six-year term for a President, and two, four-year terms for Senators and Representatives. I might even consider abolishing Standing Committees in the House and Senate, as they have proven that they are simply nests of vested political power.

This is NOT a shot at President Trump, but in present circumstances, I don't think we can actually Make America Great Again unless we permanently root out the criminal evil that is the entrenched political system. If that requires a Second Revolution, so be it.